Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor

On the same weekend Prime Minister Tony Abbott was touring drought-stricken areas, some of which are suffering once-in-a-century rainlessness, a couple of pretty interesting things happened in the global approach to climate change.

China and the US signed an agreement to address climate change and to work towards a joint platform for global negotiations.

This is a big change for the world's two biggest economies. Remember it was a spectacular bust-up between these two that derailed the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009. China's then premier, Wen Jiabao, snubbed US President Barack Obama by sending a much more junior official to a leaders' meeting.

Wen later said Copenhagen failed because of distrust between the great powers.

Advertisement

Wen has retired, China is much more worried about its pollution and climate problems, and the countries responsible for 40 per cent of global emissions are ready to work together on the problem.

It was no coincidence that, as they announced their agreement indoors, Beijing's toxic smog had cut visibility outdoors to just two to three city blocks.

Even the state-owned Central China TV, not known for its criticisms of authority, was chiding the city government: ''Beijing municipal government, don't pretend to be blind in the fog,'' snapped CCTV's business channel.

Wen's successor, Li Keqiang, signed an agreement with Secretary of State John Kerry, saying: ''In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, and the related issue of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the US and China recognise the urgent need for action to meet these twin challenges.''

Notably, the pair said they would work towards a joint program in time for a global summit set for Paris late next year. ''This is a new level of agreement between the world's two biggest polluters,'' observes John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute.

Don't believe China will act to curb its carbon emissions? Then you might be surprised to learn it already has stricter standards than Australia for carbon emissions from new cars, for example.

And in the US, Obama is tightening carbon standards by regulation after failing to do it through legislation, achieving through presidential fiat what Senate opposition would not allow.

After Beijing, Kerry travelled to Jakarta. He delivered a forceful speech on Sunday describing climate change as ''perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction''.

To bring it home to his Indonesian audience, he reminded them of some of the projected local consequences. A sea rise of one metre could ''put half of Jakarta under water''. Rising levels of ocean acidity from coal-fired power could cut the fish population of Indonesia's fisheries by 40 per cent, Kerry said.

And he spoke of some wider effects already evident. California, he said, was suffering the 13th month of the worst drought in 500 years: ''What used to be a 100-year or a 500-year event is now repeating itself within 10 years.''

He pointed out the scientific consensus did not support the claim that any one extreme weather event was the result of climate change but it did predict patterns of more intense events more frequently.

Did he try to scare his audience? Yes. He described a visit to the Philippines last December in the aftermath of typhoon Haiyan: ''I have to tell you: I've seen a lot of places in war and out of war and places that have been destroyed, but in all the time of my life, I don't think I've ever seen devastation like it.

''The fact is that climate change, if left unchecked, will wipe out many more communities from the face of the Earth.''

Action on climate change has been out of fashion since Copenhagen. The global economic downturn shifted priorities. Some factors, mainly harsh weather events, are starting to turn the fashion cycle.

The managing director of the economic hardheads at the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, herself a former conservative politician in France, is due in Sydney this week for the G20 meeting. She said she hoped Australia would not abandon its leading position on carbon action: ''Australia was very much at the forefront, Australia was pioneering in this field and I would hope that it continues to be a pioneer.''

After all, addressing climate change could be a major economic driver, she noted.

The federal government is set to abolish the carbon tax but it is committed to the bipartisan national target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020. The next 18 months, in the approach to the Paris meeting, will test all governments.

Because of human fickleness and political fashion, the climate itself will have a lot to say about what is to happen.

''We have been smashing heat records around the country,'' Connor points out, ''and this is what's happening in the La Nina phase, the cooling part of the cycle.

''The meteorologists say there's a 50:50 chance we could be in an El Nino [drought] weather phase by the end of the year. Are these things a curtain-raiser for what we will see if we enter an El Nino?''

It would be a shame if it took even worse drought to mobilise the Abbott government to move to the next phase, post-2020, of Australian involvement in addressing climate change. The science alone should be enough.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.

111 comments

I remember the conservative side of politics slamming Gough Whitlam for going behind the Bamboo Curtain to visit China. I recall their back peddling when US President Richard Nixon followed soon after. Mr Abbott's shameful embracing of the flawed science of the climate skeptics for political expediency will come back and bite him on the rear end one day as it should. About two years ago a friend of mine told me about a meeting he went to about how the science on climate change was flawed. A simple check on their website and other sources quickly revealed they were funded by Big Oil in the USA. Surely Mr Abbott with all the intelligence resources available to him would enable him to see what the USA and China leadership see that is climate change is happening. He risks looking quite foolish in the not too distant future as did his party did back in the 1970's.

Commenter

Rob

Location

Gymea Bay

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 3:28AM

Rob, if you care to research you will find Big Oil pays far more into renewable energy research than it does supporting sceptical causes. Why? Because Big Oil is selling a finite resource. One day the oil will run out so Big Oil will need to balance its business plan with alternatives. Never heard of Peak Oil?

Commenter

Jason

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:00AM

@Rob .. I'm not commenting one way or the other on climate change / global warming, but two small points:

1. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss anyone's position on the topic because of who funded their research. Stating a position is flawed because they received funding from "big oil" works both ways - the likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery both have huge vested interests in renewable energy, the survival of which depends on "climate change" being supported and action being taken; so their position can be just as readily discredited because of their "interests".

2. The current Government is doing something about climate change. They may not support the carbon tax (which, by the way, has not reduced emissions but has put up energy costs); but they are implementing other schemes (you can debate the merits of those schemes, but me you can't claim theya re doing nothing).

I personally am of the position that to do nothing will be more expensive than to address emissions; which is why I support the use of nuclear power generation - which any person who truly believes in climate change should do, because it is the cleanest long term reliable, energy source available.

Commenter

rob1966

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:20AM

Have China & the USA introduced a Carbon Tax?

Commenter

dRod

Location

Sydney

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:38AM

Rob, Abbott is still telling us that China, and other major economies, are doing nothing about climate change - and that's why we should do nothing as well. Denial is the best way to deal with big issues, apparently.

Commenter

Gelert of Birrong

Location

Sydney

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:41AM

Just like al gore and the like are funded by various corporations who are heavily invested in green energy.

Commenter

Suds

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:51AM

So long as we don't have people saying that climate change is mostly Tony Abbott's fault, strong discussion of our plans to combat it is a good thing. Well, so long as we also don't have people implying that what we do can have more than a tiny effect on the problem, and so long as we realise that we are a very small potato in this regard as a nation, we can act to show our solidarity with the big nations if and when they take serious action. And so long as we don't think China "curbing" emissions is the same as reducing them, we might be able to have a sensible discussion. And finally, so long as we don't have the common and infantile habit of ascribing any single event to climate change, the discussion might proceed.

Man appears to be having a significant effect on global warming, but he is also having a significant effect on silly politics and non-sequitor arguments.

Commenter

David Morrison

Location

Blue Mountains

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:58AM

Give us a break Rob!!! These diplomatic appointments are hellishly complicated things and are taking up all the government's time and resources at the moment. They will get 'round to climate change in due course

Commenter

Terry

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 4:59AM

I have to agree with Terry. Getting Downer out of the country is far more important to our nation at this time, I am happy to fund the entitlements if I never hear from him again.

Commenter

Bruce

Date and time

February 18, 2014, 5:15AM

Yes Rob, the liberal party are really just a front for the whims of 'big business'. Unfortunately, the other side of the duopoly are likewise for the trade unions. That's the reason why voting for either circus act is useless. We the people are always left out in the cold with no vision or medium to long term plan for Australia. It's all about what they want, not what is best for the one's who pay the taxes. The system is undemocratic and incapable of providing quality people with quality leadership capabilities. The people it throws up are minnows and are putty in the hands of professional lobby groups and leaders in the corporate world. The system requires an urgent makeover, the clock is showing one minute to midnight!